- Explicit Thoughts
- The King of the New Media Jungle
- Artificial Intelligence, Intelligent Design, Evolution and Comedy
- Fuzzy Language and Fuzzy Vocabulary
- Delusions of Grandeur
- Names vs. Words: Strings for Identity vs. Strings for Information
- How to Constrain the Freedom to Choose the Best of all Possible Worlds During an Era of Uninterrupted Progress
- How to Fix the World via the Legal System
- To Read or to Be Read
- WANTED: Is Written Language DEAD OR ALIVE?
- The Theory of Competition vs. Pricing in a Seller’s Market
- Language, the Network Effect and ICT — a Short Introduction, Here and Now
- The individualist manifesto vs. The anti-revolutionary social contract
- Neither Not at All Nor Completely
- When Wiki Gets Wonky, It Quickly Turns Wrong Key
- A Consistence Movement [First Essay]
- Zen and the Art of Giga Om
- People don’t listen, they just wait for their turn to talk
- The Greatest Retard Media Hoax is Publicity
- Responsibility to Life
- Wisdom of the Language — Nooblogs Essay
- Language is a Communications Technology, not some SEO Tactic
- 50 Pages of Google
- Subjectivity + Rationality
- The Quintessential Human Superpower: Universal Law
- Engagement is Beautiful
- People as Content: Virtual Content vs. “In Real Life” (IRL) Content
- Is the way people are just the way they are, rather than being “wrong”?
- Topics as Locations: Physical Location vs. Virtual Location
Tagsadvertising brand brands business communication community content domain domains economics economy employment engagement free Google idea ideas illiteracy illiterate information Internet language life literacy literate love market marketing meaning media online participation propaganda publishing retard media science search share social society technology web websites Wisdom of the Language writing
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
I have some friends who have launched a new podcast. I don’t want to talk about it — I feel it speaks for itself. I will say that I consider it to be quite funny here and there.
One thing I do want to do is to respond to it (and BTW: if you’re not well-versed in Frank Zappa, then now might be a good time to consider “Call Any Vegetable” 😉 ).
There are 2 things that have happened in the story so far — I mean: 2 things I wish to remark on. First, Ted and Brandon decided early on that making small changes among huge populations was something they weren’t going to consider — because they were afraid something like that wouldn’t work. The second thing they did was to mention Ray Kurzweil. Ray Kurzweil is considered by many to be an AI guru. In my opinion, his influence is rather limited… because his work is primarily about pattern recognition (and because the patterns that are supposed to be recognized are patterns that are defined by so-called “intelligent” beings). No AI I know of can recognize any pattern that has not been defined by such an intelligent being beforehand.
Evolution, however, is precisely such a process which “discovers” new patterns. It does this via trial and error — and crucially: small changes. In my opinion, Ted and Brandon may be making a huge mistake by ignoring the possibility that humans may be able to make some huge strides in very small steps. I also find it comical that two grown men would still believe that only people that seem to have immense power (like Superman) would be able to make momentous change happen.
Since I wrote about words vs. names a couple weeks ago (see “Names vs. Words: Strings for Identity vs. Strings for Information“), I have had an uneasy feeling that something is not well… and I think maybe I have figured it out now.
The problem is this: online, there is no clear demarcation of words vs. names. As I indicated in the post I linked to above, neither is this true in a strict sense offline. However, even though many dictionaries exist for each of the most common languages (and even though they differ in the vocabularies they document, how they document these vocabularies, etc.), there is nonetheless a somewhat reliable order … such that anyone can be expected to “look up” any word in any dictionary and get a more or less reasonable explanation. Part of becoming literate involves being able to use a dictionary — indeed: any dictionary (more or less). Of course there are dictionaries which are unusable (as they are not well researched), but they are exceptions, not the rule. Most people depend on the notion of some standard dictionary, and such standard dictionaries describe the standard language.
As I wrote about 10 years ago in my first “Wisdom of the Language” article, languages will always be moving targets. We have to be able to deal with such “facts of life”.
But upon reflecting on the juxtaposition of “strings for identity” (names) versus “strings for information” (words), I notice a much more severe issue: It leaves no room for dictionaries. In the back of my mind, I have reasoned that all of the registered strings in COM would make up the “commercial” dictionary, all of the strings in DE would make up the German dictionary, and so on. But each of these lists of registered strings also includes a significant number of brand names (in other words: “strings for identities”).
How will we know whether a string has been registered for a specific identity or whether it is registered for informative purposes? My gut feeling “hunch” reaction is that there may very well be attributes of the website / content that more or less clearly categorize the string as this type or that type. It might go like this: The more evidence there is of a “grass roots” type of community involvement in how the content is managed, the more the string would tend to be a word used by that community. Less evidence of this, and more evidence of a “top down” authoritarian management of the content would point towards an individual or organization identifying himself / herself / itself with the string.
I realize this seems rather wishy-washy. Maybe someday I will figure out something more clear, but until then I guess I will just have to cope with such fuzzy notions: fuzzy vocabulary and fuzzy language.
Wikipedia.org has two articles that seem somewhat related — one is about “delusions of grandeur”, the other is about “grandiosity”. From the latter:
A distinction is made between individuals exhibiting grandiosity, which includes a degree of insight into their unrealistic thoughts (they are aware that their behavior is considered unusual), in contrast to those experiencing grandiose delusions, who lack this capability for reality-testing. Some individuals may transition between these two states, with grandiose ideas initially developing as “daydreams” that the patient recognises as untrue, but which can subsequently turn into full delusions that the patient becomes convinced reflect reality.
In this post, I hope to describe how my own world view is strongly shaped by sociological thought, rather than such psychological approaches. The way I see it, psychology tries to explain the behavior of individuals without any reference to the groups, communities, cultures or societies they are a “part” of. In my opinion such a perspective is wrong on many grounds — perhaps the most significant one is the nearly ridiculous view that the psychologist apparently considers himself/herself able to make observations regarding people that might pass muster as “scientific” or “objective”; a close second is the quite obvious observation almost anyone with even a minimal education could make, namely that people are indeed very strongly affected by other people. As psychology and psychiatry are normally considered to fall within the discipline of medicine, their focus is nearly exclusively on biological organs. This very parochial approach is not always and everywhere followed by each and every psychologist / psychiatrist (indeed, just a single exception would suffice to discredit such a hypothesis), but one can hardly deny that the more any psychologist / psychiatrist pays attention to sociological factors, the less likely they will be considered to be bona fide medical professionals.
Let me try to make all of this a little more concrete with an example. Sometimes people say to me: “You can only change yourself — you cannot change others”, several ideas occur to me (but most of these ideas are not exactly in my direct consciousness — I have to reflect on them in order to bring them fully into my awareness). First of all: Why does this person say this to me? If we cannot change other people, are they not wasting their breath in talking to me at all? Indeed: Following this thinking, it is completely absurd that humans developed language, that we send our children to school, that we pay people to do jobs, and so on.
Secondly, even if this were not a completely absurd thing to say, I think: “Does this person actually consider me to be such a narcissistic idiot, that I might think I could say ‘X’ and then expect other people to simply ‘fall in line’?” What image do they have of me, to suppose that I would think this way? Although I do admit that I am happy when someone shares my opinion, I do not expect that other people will always accept my way of thinking. It is merely my opinion — and even if I strongly defend it, that certainly doesn’t mean I consider it to be an indisputable truth.
Here is another example, perhaps even a little more extreme than the previous one: There is a so-called “Law of Attraction”, a quasi theory which wikipedia.org declares has no scientific basis — “the idea that by focusing on positive or negative thoughts a person brings positive or negative experiences into their life”. In other words: merely by thinking something — nothing more than a mental state — people might be able to cause such events to happen … no, indeed even it is more fantastic than that: The supposition is that there is some sort of natural law, which will force these things to come about. Apparently, there must be a lot of people who think too much about cancer, or maybe they can’t help themselves from constantly thinking about car accidents. I do admit to having thought about sunny days before, but that doesn’t mean these thoughts actually brought about sunny days, does it?
In contrast, I feel that a large part of the world we live in is socially constructed. No one can succeed on their own. Every success is a matter that is sanctioned by some group, some community, some culture, some society, etc. People who feel they are able to succeed on their own are deluding themselves. They apparently do not wish to accept the role that other people have played in achieving their status, their privileges and/or their awesomeness.